Why Tannehill should be a better QB now Lazor is gone

"resnor wrote:

And then Lazor melted down, and proved to be incapable of adjusting when it was blatantly obvious that other teams had it figured out.

Or, if you subscribe to jdang's theory, Lazor pitched the biggest ***** fit I've ever heard of in the NFL, and intentionally screwed his QB, team, and franchise.

It sucks because you don't know, what you don't know. ;)

Can I pay half a year of your club membership? Lead you to the enlightened land.

"jdang307 wrote:

It sucks because you don't know, what you don't know. ;)

Can I pay half a year of your club membership? Lead you to the enlightened land.

You have to stop.

"Fin D wrote:

You have to stop.

Hey pot, kettle here.

"jdang307 wrote:

Hey pot, kettle here.

You keep saying things that happened in club that didn't.

Yeah, I don't buy Lazor and Philbin going all kamikaze on their careers because they had to deal with a QB they decided they didn't want. It would seem far more likely that they would just go run heavy. If they win, they're geniuses. If they lose, Ross replaces them. But they don't look like asshats.

"cbrad wrote:

The only problem I had with Tannehill and consistency is that it got worse in 2015. Easy way to measure consistency is variance-to-mean ratio. You look at how much something varies and divide that by the mean (you divide by the mean because distributions around smaller means naturally have smaller variance and you want to adjust for that).

Tannehill's variance-to-mean ratio for passer rating from 2012-2015 was: 8.71, 5.59, 4.19, 6.67.

For comparison, Brady's from 2001-2004 was: 10.77, 8.76, 7.47, 4.53.

So you can see Tannehill's consistency in his first 4 years is better than Brady's, except for his 4th year. Tannehill's inconsistency went up last year, and it's something one has to hope is just an aberration, but if it's not then it's something to worry about. Other than that, consistency with Tannehill isn't an issue relative to the rest of the NFL.

But what we've been looking at is how Tannehill's variation is tied to the game situation.

Basically he performed like a top 8 QB when they were ahead or tied and he performed like a bottom 8 QB when he was behind. Further, variation according to game situation did not exist during Sherman's 2 years.

My assertion is that it was how Lazor's playcalling changed depending on the game situation that was the root cause of the variation. Because of small sample sizes I would not nail my colors to the mast based on one season. If my theory is correct it is fixable situation.

The other theory is that is Tannehill who was inconsistent. But if Tannehill is the root cause then he should be similarly inconsistent when ahead and behind, which isn't the case.

What I'm suggesting is that the variance was caused because Tannehill was consistent and Lazor was consistent. In Situation A Tannehill is a probowl QB, in situation B he is Mark Sanchez. The appearance of inconsistency arises because the Situation A/B variance is so big and Situation A/B is a very volatile variable.

"resnor wrote:

Yeah, I don't buy Lazor and Philbin going all kamikaze on their careers because they had to deal with a QB they decided they didn't want. It would seem far more likely that they would just go run heavy. If they win, they're geniuses. If they lose, Ross replaces them. But they don't look like asshats.

There's nothing in club about that happening. He's making it up just like he made up the "audible" thing.

"Pauly wrote:

But what we've been looking at is how Tannehill's variation is tied to the game situation.

Basically he performed like a top 8 QB when they were ahead or tied and he performed like a bottom 8 QB when he was behind. Further, variation according to game situation did not exist during Sherman's 2 years.

Variation always exists, even when you just look at the different game conditions you looked at. You only pointed out the averages, not the variances (only way variance is 0 is if Tannehill's stats were absolutely identical from game to game).

Anyway, point is variance-to-mean is a simple way of measuring consistency, and while I didn't calculate it for different game conditions (but neither did you), one can show Tannehill is fairly consistent relative to the rest of the NFL statistically speaking. Only issue I had with Tannehill was the increased inconsistency in 2015.

"Pauly wrote:

Firstly what is your definition of consistency? Every QB will have bad games every now and then. No QB makes a perfect throw on every ball. If you want to argue that Tannehill is inconsistent could you please define what you think consistency is.

The entire point of doing the analysis was to look at Whether Lazor's playcalling from behind affected Tanehill's performance. My impression during the season was that it did, and I believe that my analysis is fairly robust and has a large enough sample size to draw some solid conclusions.
Specifically-
- Tannehill's variance in performance is strongly tied to whether he was behind or not behind on the scoreboard.
- His team mates didn't change according to that situation, so they couldn't be a significant causative factor
- Prior to Lazor his performance did not vary whether he was behind or in front. Which indicates that the problem isn't Tannehill melting under pressure.
- It can be easily proved that Lazor abandoned the run as soon as he was behind.
Therefore the thing that changed was Lazor's playcalling when the phins were behind. If you take the 2 Lazor years when the team was not behind on the scoreboard Tannhill's passing splits are-
289 of 438 passes (66.0% completion) for 3322 yards (7.6 yards/a) and a 24/6 TD/Int ratio. Which is basically a season's worth of consistently good performance.

If you think that this discrepancy is mainly Tannehill's fault where's your evidence? It's time for you (as you said about Tannehill) to put up or shut up.
I've put my evidence up but you want me to shut up because it disagrees with your perceptions.

Tannehill, in his best year, 2014, was pretty inconsistent even though overall, was pretty good at the end of the year. I play fantasy, so one of the metrics was, how consistent the QB is. Because a guy who ends the year pretty good, but had half his games excellent, but half his games really bad, ruined his fantasy owner. Tannehill had one of the most highs and lows that year. Is that all his fault? Oline? Coaches, playcalling? Receivers? Not sure. But based on production that's what it was in 2014

"resnor wrote:

Yeah, I don't buy Lazor and Philbin going all kamikaze on their careers because they had to deal with a QB they decided they didn't want. It would seem far more likely that they would just go run heavy. If they win, they're geniuses. If they lose, Ross replaces them. But they don't look like asshats.

I will buy you half a year. It's only $15. I spend more than that on a 6 pack of beer (Ballast Point Sculpin, yummy!)

"jdang307 wrote:

Tannehill, in his best year, 2014, was pretty inconsistent even though overall, was pretty good at the end of the year. I play fantasy, so one of the metrics was, how consistent the QB is. Because a guy who ends the year pretty good, but had half his games excellent, but half his games really bad, ruined his fantasy owner. Tannehill had one of the most highs and lows that year. Is that all his fault? Oline? Coaches, playcalling? Receivers? Not sure. But based on production that's what it was in 2014

We're kind of looking at different things. You're looking at production and making the observation that Tannehill has inconsistent output.

I'm trying to isolate what the root cause of the inconsistent production is. There are basically four possible explanations for the difference in between his performance when he is behind and when he's not behind.

1) null hypothesis, it's just random. With over 1200 attempts included random variation is a extremely unlikely to be the cause.
2) Hypothesis 1: It's his team mates fault. His team mates are the same whether he is ahead or behind so this doesn't fly for me.
3) Hypothesis 2: Tannehill melts under pressure. The Sherman years indicate that Tannehill is able to perform consistently regardless of game situation.
4) Hypothesis 3: Lazor's playcalling turned to crud when he was under pressure. This is supported by game logs showing that Miami abandoned the run when behind

Now we really can't prove which hypothesis is correct. I say the data supports Hypothesis 3 as the most likely explanation.

If true this means Gase should get Tannehill up into top 8 QB territory without changing anything other than providing a consistent quality of playcalling.

Also, variance to mean measures game to game variance. I am looking at variance according to game situation.

"Pauly wrote:

Firstly what is your definition of consistency? Every QB will have bad games every now and then. No QB makes a perfect throw on every ball. If you want to argue that Tannehill is inconsistent could you please define what you think consistency is.

The entire point of doing the analysis was to look at Whether Lazor's playcalling from behind affected Tanehill's performance. My impression during the season was that it did, and I believe that my analysis is fairly robust and has a large enough sample size to draw some solid conclusions.
Specifically-
- Tannehill's variance in performance is strongly tied to whether he was behind or not behind on the scoreboard.
- His team mates didn't change according to that situation, so they couldn't be a significant causative factor
- Prior to Lazor his performance did not vary whether he was behind or in front. Which indicates that the problem isn't Tannehill melting under pressure.
- It can be easily proved that Lazor abandoned the run as soon as he was behind.
Therefore the thing that changed was Lazor's playcalling when the phins were behind. If you take the 2 Lazor years when the team was not behind on the scoreboard Tannhill's passing splits are-
289 of 438 passes (66.0% completion) for 3322 yards (7.6 yards/a) and a 24/6 TD/Int ratio. Which is basically a season's worth of consistently good performance.

If you think that this discrepancy is mainly Tannehill's fault where's your evidence? It's time for you (as you said about Tannehill) to put up or shut up.
I've put my evidence up but you want me to shut up because it disagrees with your perceptions.

Going back to his days as the Texas A&M QB, Tannehill has never been a consistently effective QB in the fourth quarter of games where his team is behind in close games.

He just doesn't make the plays quality QB's make to win those type games. This happened in college and throughout his NFL career. He just hasn't proved that he is the QB you want leading your team in the fourth quarter of close games.

Of course Tannehill apologists will blame his issues in these instances on everyone else on the team or the coaching staff, but never on Tannehill. To them, it is the OL, the WR's, the head coach or the OC who is to blame when the team fails to move the ball to score at the end of games.

As one of my college professors told our class many years ago. "You can manipulate statistics to prove anything you want to". Tannehill certainly isn't the worst QB in the NFL, but I see him a lot closer to the bottom than the top.

To me, good QB's don't play in the league for 4 years and their team not have a single winning season during those 4 years. Of course I realize none of this has anything to do with Tannehill. It is everybody else who is to blame for the sub 500 record since Tannehill became the starting QB in 2012.

As I stated yesterday. I hope Tannehill can become a better and more consistent QB under Gase. I would love to see him become a top tier QB and be able to lead Miami for the next decade. I just don't know if he will ever be more than he has been so far, which to me is mediocre.

I don't expect much from the team overall this coming season. I think a 6-10 record is likely going to be the best we can expect based on their 2016 schedule. So to me the season is all about seeing if Tannehill can become a better QB under the coaching of Gase.

Because his contract calls for him to start making the big money in 2017. I think it is important he proves in 2016 that he is the long term answer at the QB position for the Dolphins or else the Dolphins need to look for a long term solution once the 2016 is over.

Yes, the pathetic defense giving up 27+ points routinely, combined with a poor oline, poor coaching, and mostly poor receivers (along with a raw developing for at least the first two years QB) didn't contribute to poor records. See, this is why we continue to have the arguments. If you guys post in a thread long enough, IT ALWAYS comes back to win/loss record. It's insane. Tannehill is not the main reason for the record, no matter how many times you say it. Tannehill, since his rookie year, has been asked to throw more than almost any QB in the league, while having the worst oline in the league, along with bad coaching and poor receivers (and no run game) AND expected to lead his offense to 27+ points in a majority, I think, if games. But yeah, let's lay the blame of the record on him.

Four years in, and the same tired, beat arguments are being trotted out. For four years, you guys have ignored all the arguments against your position, and continued to repeatedly day the same thing, no matter what people show you.

Yet I, and a few others, are the ones accused of having an agenda.

"resnor wrote:

Yes, the pathetic defense giving up 27+ points routinely, combined with a poor oline, poor coaching, and mostly poor receivers (along with a raw developing for at least the first two years QB) didn't contribute to poor records. See, this is why we continue to have the arguments. If you guys post in a thread long enough, IT ALWAYS comes back to win/loss record. It's insane. Tannehill is not the main reason for the record, no matter how many times you say it. Tannehill, since his rookie year, has been asked to throw more than almost any QB in the league, while having the worst oline in the league, along with bad coaching and poor receivers (and no run game) AND expected to lead his offense to 27+ points in a majority, I think, if games. But yeah, let's lay the blame of the record on him.

Four years in, and the same tired, beat arguments are being trotted out. For four years, you guys have ignored all the arguments against your position, and continued to repeatedly day the same thing, no matter what people show you.

Yet I, and a few others, are the ones accused of having an agenda.

I have no agenda. I would love for Tannehill to prove me wrong, when I say his is merely a mediocre QB in the NFL.
He doesn't make the players around him better, as the top QB's in the league do. The Colts are an example of a team which hasn't had anymore talent than the Dolphins the last four years. Yet when Luck was able to play without injury his first three years in the league, he led his very mediocre team to the playoffs each of those seasons.

When he was injured last year and missed most of the season, the Colts showed that they were barely mediocre without him.

There are at least 10 young QB's with four years or less experience I would gladly trade Tannehill for. Obviously the Dolphins have numerous spots to fill on their roster and Tannehill certainly isn't the major problem on the roster.

I just don't know after four years as the starting QB for the Dolphins if he is the long term solution for the most important position on the team either. To me the 2016 season should be a make or break season for Tannehill with the Dolphins.

"jw3102 wrote:

I have no agenda. I would love for Tannehill to prove me wrong, when I say his is merely a mediocre QB in the NFL.
He doesn't make the players around him better, as the top QB's in the league do. The Colts are an example of a team which hasn't had anymore talent than the Dolphins the last four years. Yet when Luck was able to play without injury his first three years in the league, he led his very mediocre team to the playoffs each of those seasons.

When he was injured last year and missed most of the season, the Colts showed that they were barely mediocre without him.

There are at least 10 young QB's with four years or less experience I would gladly trade Tannehill for. Obviously the Dolphins have numerous spots to fill on their roster and Tannehill certainly isn't the major problem on the roster.

I just don't know after four years as the starting QB for the Dolphins if he is the long term solution for the most important position on the team either. To me the 2016 season should be a make or break season for Tannehill with the Dolphins.

I guess the problem is, you seem to be waiting for an improved team record before you say Thill proved anything to you. The reason that is a problem, is you're giving too much credit to the QB. Win/loss record is not now nor has it ever been a qb stat.

See Peyton Manning and Philip Rivers this past year for all the proof needed to back that up.

"Fin D wrote:

I guess the problem is, you seem to be waiting for an improved team record before you say Thill proved anything to you. The reason that is a problem, is you're giving too much credit to the QB. Win/loss record is not now nor has it ever been a qb stat.

See Peyton Manning and Philip Rivers this past year for all the proof needed to back that up.

If you read my first statement, you will see that I stated I want to see how Tannehill develops under Gase. Yet I also predicted the Dolphins will likely finish next season 6-10.

I feel the Dolphins have has better rosters the past few years than they will likely have heading into next season. They lost better talent in free agency than they have signed, IMO. So unless they have a great draft and get at least 3 immediate quality starters, I really don't think this team will have as much talent as the teams the past three years.

I believe the one major upgrade they made during the offseason was the hiring of Gase. So if the Dolphins have another losing season and Tannehill shows consistent improvement under Gase during the season, I will be satisfied with him beyond 2016.

I have nothing agaisnt Tannehill other than I just think he is rather mediocre at this stage of his career. I agree that if he is surrounded with a great defense and a quality OL, this might be enough for him to lead the team to the playoffs eventually.

My only agenda in regards to the QB position for the Dolphins the is I want a QB who can win SB's when surrounded with quality talent on the roster. I just am not convinced Tannehill is a QB who can ever win a SB.

Right now the team is not filled with a lot of talent and Tannehill is certainly better than any other QB now on the roster. He will be the starter in 2016 and will have the opportunity to prove to Gase he deserves to be the starter beyond this coming season.

My opinion of Tannehill is that he is okay for now, but hopefully he will get a lot better or the Dolphins need to start looking for his replacement. In the end, he doesn't have to prove anything to me or anyone else on this forum because we don't hire or fire anyone on the Dolphins. He simply has to prove it to his coaches, the front office and his teammates.

"jw3102 wrote:

If you read my first statement, you will see that I stated I want to see how Tannehill develops under Gase. Yet I also predicted the Dolphins will likely finish next season 6-10.

I feel the Dolphins have has better rosters the past few years than they will likely have heading into next season. They lost better talent in free agency than they have signed, IMO. So unless they have a great draft and get at least 3 immediate quality starters, I really don't think this team will have as much talent as the teams the past three years.

I believe the one major upgrade they made during the offseason was the hiring of Gase. So if the Dolphins have another losing season and Tannehill shows consistent improvement under Gase during the season, I will be satisfied with him beyond 2016.

I have nothing agaisnt Tannehill other than I just think he is rather mediocre at this stage of his career. I agree that if he is surrounded with a great defense and a quality OL, this might be enough for him to lead the team to the playoffs eventually.

My only agenda in regards to the QB position for the Dolphins the is I want a QB who can win SB's when surrounded with quality talent on the roster. I just am not convinced Tannehill is a QB who can ever win a SB.

Right now the team is not filled with a lot of talent and Tannehill is certainly better than any other QB now on the roster. He will be the starter in 2016 and will have the opportunity to prove to Gase he deserves to be the starter beyond this coming season.

My opinion of Tannehill is that he is okay for now, but hopefully he will get a lot better or the Dolphins need to start looking for his replacement. In the end, he doesn't have to prove anything to me or anyone else on this forum because we don't hire or fire anyone on the Dolphins. He simply has to prove it to his coaches, the front office and his teammates.

I did read your first statement. But again, in that same paragraph you said:

The Colts are an example of a team which hasn't had anymore talent than the Dolphins the last four years. Yet when Luck was able to play without injury his first three years in the league, he led his very mediocre team to the playoffs each of those seasons.

...which is, absolutely, you saying if Thill wasn't the problem we'd have been in the playoffs, like Luck. Surely, you can see that?

Why does everyone say Tannehill needs greatness around him? The dude hasn't even had average talent around him, and he's produced, in very bad circumstances, and the Dolphins have been 8-8 two of his four years. Rookie season 7-9, last season 6-10. Last year was a complete wreck, though, so only the biggest hater is blaming Tannehill for that.

I still believe you get average talent around Tannehill, and the Dolphins win, and Tannehill looks awesome.

"Pauly wrote:

But what we've been looking at is how Tannehill's variation is tied to the game situation.

Basically he performed like a top 8 QB when they were ahead or tied and he performed like a bottom 8 QB when he was behind. Further, variation according to game situation did not exist during Sherman's 2 years.

My assertion is that it was how Lazor's playcalling changed depending on the game situation that was the root cause of the variation. Because of small sample sizes I would not nail my colors to the mast based on one season. If my theory is correct it is fixable situation.

The other theory is that is Tannehill who was inconsistent. But if Tannehill is the root cause then he should be similarly inconsistent when ahead and behind, which isn't the case.

What I'm suggesting is that the variance was caused because Tannehill was consistent and Lazor was consistent. In Situation A Tannehill is a probowl QB, in situation B he is Mark Sanchez. The appearance of inconsistency arises because the Situation A/B variance is so big and Situation A/B is a very volatile variable.

Well, I hope we have an AA QB this year then. What impresses me the most in a QB is his ability to pick his team up and lead them to victory....especially from behind...grab their face masks....get them focussed on the task at hand...that HAS to change THIS year, or we need to find a new QB. And by the way, just to get this straight, I am pulling for Tannehill to succeed but I can also be honest enough with myself to know that he has 2 very BIG hurdles that he needs to overcome this year.

(#1) Pocket Awareness.....He just has to get a handle on this. A QB has to be able to either see the pressure coming, or feel it coming. When this happens, he needs to learn how to either move up in the pocket or side to side, or with his talent at running the football,he needs to haul azz...take off running....He will get us many additional first downs this way or at least nice yardage on them. Now, I know there will be instances where the line breaks down everywhere and thus an unavoidable sack which happens to EVERY QB in this league. What he also cannot do is stand back there in the pocket with plenty of time to get rid of the ball and then freeze up, duck, and take a sack that should never be a sack...He has to read his receivers much quicker and rip it. With Marino back helping him again without Philbin's jealousy, I think this part of his game can improve drastically if he listens to Dan and practices very hard at it. I would even have Dan rip it to the receivers as well where Ryan can also learn it from watching him as well.

(#2) Leadership.......Now, I think we all know that he has really stunk it up in this part of his game as well. I think with Gase,Christiansen, Hardegree, and Marino working very hard with him, his leadership skills can and HAVE to improve or we will have to seriously consider making a change at the QB position, which is the most important position on the team. When the players are down, disengaged,running wrong routes,dropping passes, or need encouragement, who do almost all players on offense look to? The QB !!!!! This is a BIG and IMPORTANT part of his job as well and we need Ryan to change from being introverted in this area, to being extroverted. Again y'all, this is year #5 coming up for him in the NFL and this is the year of no more excuses....it is about to get very expensive for us to move forward with him next year and if he does not improve tremendously I these 2 areas along with being as good or better in all other aspects of his game,then we will have to draft a QB in the first round, so we get him on the lesser expensive 5 year rookie deal. One guy y'all will all enjoy checking out his game is Patrick Mahomes, Texas Tech QB. This guy has really got the talent all the way around. You will see as you watch some clips of him on YouTube or any other site that shows film on players or whole games etc....enough about him for now, as I originally stated that I am rooting for Ryan to get over the hump this year and be the Leader and QB that he has all the tools to be....this is all jmho and how I feel about it.

"resnor wrote:

Why does everyone say Tannehill needs greatness around him? The dude hasn't even had average talent around him, and he's produced, in very bad circumstances, and the Dolphins have been 8-8 two of his four years. Rookie season 7-9, last season 6-10. Last year was a complete wreck, though, so only the biggest hater is blaming Tannehill for that.

I still believe you get average talent around Tannehill, and the Dolphins win, and Tannehill looks awesome.

Look at the list of recent SB winning QB's. Since 2004, the winners are: Tom Brady, Ben Roethlisberger, Peyton Manning, Eli Manning, Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers, Joe Flacco and Russel Wilson. All those QB's are considered by practically everyone in the NFL to be better (or much better in most cases) than Tannehill.

You have to go back to 2003 where Brad Johnson led Tampa Bay to a SB win before you see an example of a not-so-good QB with a good enough team around him.

Furthermore, most of those SB winning teams had a really good team, not just QB!

So it's unrealistic IMO to suggest an average QB with an average team has a decent shot at winning the SB. No, you need a great surrounding cast with an average QB to win. Or more likely, you have elements of a really good team and elements of an average team coupled with a well above average or elite QB to win. So yeah, I think Tannehill needs a great surrounding cast and it's really hard to provide that, which is why if he doesn't produce this year I'm for drafting a new QB.

Ummm...if we can go 8-8 with a defense that gives up 30 points like it's nothing, an oline that can't block, mostly average receivers, non-existent run game, and coaches that can't coach, I think it's very likely that we would make the playoffs with Tannehill doing exactly what he's done all along. I didn't say anything about winning the Super Bowl.

"cbrad wrote:

Look at the list of recent SB winning QB's. Since 2004, the winners are: Tom Brady, Ben Roethlisberger, Peyton Manning, Eli Manning, Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers, Joe Flacco and Russel Wilson. All those QB's are considered by practically everyone in the NFL to be better (or much better in most cases) than Tannehill.

You have to go back to 2003 where Brad Johnson led Tampa Bay to a SB win before you see an example of a not-so-good QB with a good enough team around him.

Furthermore, most of those SB winning teams had a really good team, not just QB!

So it's unrealistic IMO to suggest an average QB with an average team has a decent shot at winning the SB. No, you need a great surrounding cast with an average QB to win. Or more likely, you have elements of a really good team and elements of an average team coupled with a well above average or elite QB to win. So yeah, I think Tannehill needs a great surrounding cast and it's really hard to provide that, which is why if he doesn't produce this year I'm for drafting a new QB.

Doesn't the bold confirm what we've been saying?

On pocket presence...you have to have an oline that doesn't allow pressure from multiple angles. I saw plenty of time Tannehill would feel pressure from the edge, and go to climb the pocket, only to get sacked by the interior of the dline spicing the interior of the oline back. Or, Tannehill try to go outside because of pressure from the interior, only to get gaskets by pressure from the edge. What I'm saying, and FinD and I have argued all along, is that for him to use his athleticism consistently, he needs to have a place to escape, or rather, lanes to escape. Because the oline was such a trainwreck, four rushers often were able to close all lanes.

As to the leadership, do any of you think that maybe, JUST MAYBE, having a coach and OC undercut you and try to get rid of you created a situation where Tannehill couldn't take control, or players wouldn't listen? I mean, you're blaming Tannehill for something that in all likelihood, was a direct result of inept and pathetic coaching.

"Fin D wrote:

Doesn't the bold confirm what we've been saying?

Was going to comment the exact same freaking thing.

"resnor wrote:

Ummm...if we can go 8-8 with a defense that gives up 30 points like it's nothing, an oline that can't block, mostly average receivers, non-existent run game, and coaches that can't coach, I think it's very likely that we would make the playoffs with Tannehill doing exactly what he's done all along. I didn't say anything about winning the Super Bowl.

You didn't say anything about winning a SB, but you asked why some people are saying Tannehill needs a great surrounding cast. Since I posted earlier on exactly that topic, it implicitly referenced winning the SB. Besides, the ultimate goal is winning the SB and for that I think you need a well above average QB.

"Fin D wrote:

Doesn't the bold confirm what we've been saying?

Well I'm certainly not one of the posters that thinks the surrounding cast is unimportant, so in that sense we agree. The disagreement with me (if there really is one) comes from what it takes to win the SB. So far I haven't seen Tannehill produce at a level where I'd say the chances of us winning the SB with an average surrounding cast are decent.